Philosophy, Constructivism And Asynchronous E-Learning: Part II

While we are indeed individuals, we exist as part of a society and, thus, other people, it could be argued, are integral to our own “journeys” and sense of self.

  Philosophy of Self and Other

Philosopher Paul Ricoeur, ‘consistently asserts the relational and dialogical nature of human existence, he rejects the fantasy of individual self-sufficiency in an acknowledgement of the realities of human interdependence’ (O’Dwyer, 2009). For Ricoeur, this dialectic between self and the other is fundamental to individual identity (thus, one is not more important than the other). In fact, in the introduction to his book, Oneself as Another, Ricoeur (1994) states that otherness ‘is not (or not merely) the result of comparison...[but] can be constitutive of selfhood’. Thus, he presents a critique of the common construction of a dichotomous relationship between self and other, which can be seen in, for example, Hegel’s master-slave dialectic or Levinas’ assertion that self can ‘can only exist in a meaningful way when it “answers” to the call of the other’ (O’Dwyer, 2009).  Contrary to these polarised perspectives that require comparison and difference to be realised, Ricoeur (1994), believes that ‘selfhood of oneself implies otherness to such an intimate degree that one cannot be thought of without the other’ (emphasis mine).

Creating the social constructivist learning environment

If we are to accept Ricoeur’s conception of selfhood (which, indeed, we may not!), then we can begin to see why it is that not only is engagement with the other a vital aspect of the learning experience, but more importantly, willing encounter with the other. Thus, there is a “moral” aspect to the way in which we construct learning environments that can impact on the way our students conceive of themselves as individuals and/or as part of a community. Asynchronous e-learning provides greater opportunities for individualistic approaches to, and experiences of, learning. Yet, at this point, I need to make clear that I would not argue that asynchronous e-learning is individualistic in essence. I would merely put forward the view that there is not the constructivist philosophy built into its “DNA” as there may well be in the case of synchronous e-learning.  But the point is, then, that educators need to take greater care to consider this when setting guidelines in asynchronous e-learning to ensure a positive, constructivist environment.

Philosophy, Constructivism And Asynchronous E-Learning

Introduction

Micah makes the very interesting point that a ‘synchronous e-learning classroom is a constructivist classroom.’ Indeed, he suggests that synchronous learning does not merely employ the ideas and strategies of constructivism, but actually is, in essence, constructivist. This is, perhaps, the key point of difference between synchronous and asynchronous e-learning.

Firstly, we need to be clear that there are two related, but importantly different strands of constructivism: social and cognitive. While I would argue that asynchronous has no problems in adopting a cognitive constructivist approach, there may be more difficulty in creating a social constructivist environment. For the purpose of this post, I am interested in social constructivism and this is what is meant by the phrase “constructivism” from here on. Finally, I am assuming the acceptance of constructivism as a desired educational philosophy. The debate over whether it is in actual fact desirable will come later.

Individualism and Asynchronous e-Learning

 There is the possibility for asynchronous e-learning to follow constructivist ideas. For example, a blog allows students to create knowledge together. However there is, inherent to asynchronous e-learning, the option to ignore the ‘Other’. Whereas synchronous e-learning is fundamentally communitarian, asynchronous e-learning provides for – perhaps even supports – the primacy of the individual over the community. In a world where the message conveyed is so often “it’s all about me”, we as educators may need to be careful that we do not unnecessarily or, indeed, unwittingly contribute to this.

Marketing professor at Monash University, Michael Morrison, is quoted by Rebecca Martin as saying that ‘While there's something like 15 million iPods out there, not one of them are the same. The iPod carries “my music”, it is “my space”’. In an asynchronous world, this customisation becomes possible. And customisation, of course, gives extraordinary power to the creator/host. I can choose to block people from being able to comment on my blog, or I can moderate comments or I can make it a “closed” site altogether. If this kind of becomes normative, it severely diminishes one’s understanding of, and commitment to, community. While we are indeed individuals, we exist as part of a society and, thus, other people, it could be argued, are integral to our own “journeys” and sense of self.

I will post again tomorrow, focusing on the relationship between the self and the 'other' and creating a social constructivist learning environment.

Synchronous e-learning and Constructivism

The philosophical and educational benefits of synchronous e-learning can be justified by looking at a few experts and theories related to the aforementioned fields.

It is interesting to note that I am not the only person who has mentioned the connection between e-learning technologies and constructivism. Andrea/Martine have used Vygotsky's Social-Constructivist theory to underpin their proposal that a computer can be utlized as a useful tool to enhance student learning and social interactions. Likewise, synchronous e-learning has a focus on constructivism and its links with social interaction.

Constructivists believe that individuals must construct their own knowledge and that all knowledge is temporary (that is, each concept is considered true until further experiences allow the learner to refine it). Learners in a constructivist classroom use a ‘problem-centred’ approach and content is not studied as isolated facts but as broad concepts and interdisciplinary themes (see here for a brief introduction to constructivism). Furthermore, ‘constructivism emphasises that learning takes place in a sociocultural environment. We learn not as isolated individuals acquiring chunks of disassociated quasi-permanent truths, but as members of society’ (Kate Wilson, 2003).

The notion of constructivism and social interaction are at the heart of synchronous e-learning, where, with practice, learners become aware of themselves as members of a community. These ideas can be supported by the work of Russian psychologist, and educational theorist, Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934).

At the core of Vygotsky’s Social-Cultural Theory (an introduction to this theory can be found here), is the idea that child development is the result of the interactions between children and their social environment. These interactions include interactions between the learner and their parents, teachers, siblings and peers. There are also interactions that occur between the learner and significant objects such as books, toys and culturally significant places. Through these interactions, learners actively construct knowledge, skills, and attitudes that do not merely mirror the world around them. Though Vygotsky lived well before the development of e-learning technologies, it is clear that synchronous e-learning can be included in the list of ‘interactions’ or ‘tools’.

Stephen has suggested that asynchronous e-learning increases a person’s ability to process information which ‘may well actually contribute to the development of - both a sense and real manifestation - a learning community’. This may well be true, though it appears as though asynchronous e-learning lacks the interactive and collaborative elements that are foundational to constructivism and social interaction. The construction of knowledge in asynchronous e-learning does not occur immediately (in real-time) as it does in synchronous e-learning. Does this inhibit and slow learning?

A synchronous e-learning classroom is a constructivist classroom. Each student brings prior knowledge, developed through a complex web of interactions, with them into the learning environment. Within the synchronous community, students are able to ask questions and gather responses immediately in order to construct further knowledge. The synchronous e-learning context is one in which students play an active role in learning. Information is gathered in a collaborative manner, with the teacher working with the students to help facilitate meaning.

Defining Asynchronous e-Learning

Micah has introduced to us synchronous e-learning. It is my task to briefly explain what is meant by asynchronous e-learning.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that, despite the seemingly dichotomous nature of this “debate”, I don’t think that synchronous and asynchronous e-learning are polar opposites as such. Rather, the terms describe differences in the mode of learning, not fundamental differences which make the two incompatible.

As Micah has pointed out, ‘Synchronous e-learning takes place in “real-time” and is therefore immediate’. Conversely, ‘Asynchronous learning occurs when the training is accessed at the learner’s convenience and can take place in different time frames and places.’ Much of the ICT use in education thus far has been asynchronous. For example, I wonder how many of us have used ‘self-paced computer-based learning via the Internet or from CDs and data streaming, audio/video, bulletin boards and e-mail’?

Many of us have experienced the benefits of asynchronous e-learning which, according to Etherington (2008), ‘lets students access prepackaged software on their own time, working at their own pace and communicating with a cyber-instructor or even other students through e-mail. In addition, asynchronous E-learning is reflected by school student’s use of the Web; practices which involve students connecting to and downloading information.’

Hrastinski (2008) suggests that asynchronous e-learning ‘increases a person’s ability to process information [because] the receiver has more time to comprehend a message because an immediate answer is not expected.’ This may well actually contribute to the development of - both a sense and real manifestation - a learning community, which contrasts with the implication in Micah's post that "community" is created with a synchronous approach.

While the benefits of flexibility will be immediately obvious to the reader/educator, I want to begin my exploration of asynchronous e-learning by considering some of the potential issues which might be of concern to the educator. My next post will focus more critically on the implicit values inherent in asynchronous e-learning.

Defining Synchronous E-learning

Though many definitions exist, e-learning can be simply defined as: the delivery of a learning, training or education program by electronic means. E-learning involves the use of a computer or electronic device in some way to provide training, educational or learning material (Derek Stockley 2003). Though distance education provided the base for e-learning's development, e-learning is not limited to distance education. E-learning can occur on local through to global scales.

Stefan Hrastinski writes that e-learning ‘is arguably one of the most powerful responses to the growing need for education’. However, for e-learning initiatives to succeed, institutions need to be aware of the various forms e-learning can take and the benefits and limitations of these forms. At present, e-learning is placed into two categories: synchronous and asynchronous. An ongoing debate addresses the usefulness of asynchronous versus synchronous e-learning.

‘Synchronous e-learning imitates a classroom, which entails classes taking place in real-time and connecting instructors and students via streaming audio or video or through a chat room’ (Matthew Etherington, 2008). Synchronous e-learning takes place in ‘real-time’ and is therefore immediate. Questions can be asked which generate immediate responses which in turn lead to further questions/responses. Clarifications can be sought and no time lost waiting for a reaction. (The Skype chat sessions are a good example of synchronous e-learning). Furthermore, Hrastinski argues that synchronous e-learning provides support e-learners need in the development of learning communities. Learners therefore feel part of a community which is working together to improve knowledge and understanding in the particular content area. Learners do not feel isolated, as though they are simply spending time with a computer.

There are many benefits of synchronous e-learning, including the community aspect described briefly in this post. In later posts, I will discuss both the benefits and limitations of synchronous e-learning, though my next post will look at the educational and philosophical implications of synchronous e-learning.

What is e-learning?

Synchronous and asynchronous learning can both be defined as types of e-learning. But before we can define and debate synchronous and asynchronous e-learning, we need to define the term 'e-learning'. This brief youtube clip gives an introduction to some of the key ideas regarding e-learning and is a useful starting point of our debate.

Each person in the video has a different conception of e-learning.

What do you think of when you hear the term e-learning?

about this blog

Through this blog, Micah and Stephen will hold a debate (well, more a robust discussion really) for our Cyber Culture and Education class. The focus of the discussion will be the benefits and limitations of two e-learning styles: synchronous and asynchronous.